Pyro or flare?

[coolhandluke]

Not me who initially linked the two things in the debate, simply responding, so you are a bit wide of the mark & being a fucking idiot.

Please accept my sincere apology Nick . I've reread the thread and i feel compelled to alter my original comment . There are of course two fucking idiots on this thread , you and one other .

Racism and pyros in the same breath ? Don't be a pair of fucking idiots .

 

[Blade in Cordoba]

No. The point I'm trying to make is that there will always be something someone is going to get all indignant about. Football grounds are becoming more morgue-like in direct proportion to the things you're not allowed to do or say these days.

It's not 'indignance' to be genuinely concerned about one's fellow supporters' health and safety. If we need props and gimmicks to generate an atmosphere that's a sad indictment of our support.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Et voila, racist pyro......

 

[Barney]

I wonder how many of the altruism promoters would prevent a flare being thrown first hand?

If there were as many as this thread suggests, the flare in question wouldn't have left the guys hand in the first place.

I think we need to act collectively to stamp out the idiocy before it does indeed cause harm to others

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

I wonder how many of the altruism promoters would prevent a flare being thrown first hand?

If there were as many as this thread suggests, the flare in question wouldn't have left the guys hand in the first place.

I can't prevent Trump launching a nuclear weapon, but on balance I would rather he didn't. And exactly how do you prevent a flare being thrown without it simply creating harm to the people nearby?

 

[sheffielder]

Pyro myself, where is the vote button

 

[Nick Jansky]

Please accept my sincere apology Nick . I've reread the thread and i feel compelled to alter my original comment . There are of course two fucking idiots on this thread , you and one other .

Racism and pyros in the same breath ? Don't be a pair of fucking idiots .

Coming from you I'm obviously going to take that as a huge compliment so thanks me owd love

 

[sheffielder]

Please accept my sincere apology Nick . I've reread the thread and i feel compelled to alter my original comment . There are of course two fucking idiots on this thread , you and one other .

Racism and pyros in the same breath ? Don't be a pair of fucking idiots .

Think you could do with an alcholic drink mate because the demons are still coming out without it

 

[Nick Jansky]

Think you could do with an alcholic drink mate because the demons are still coming out without it

I'd assumed that had happened quite a bit earlier in the day.

 

[1889]

What else can they do without impunity then? What would a "fellow Blade" have to do for you to inform the police? Can they steal? Can they damage something? Beat someone senseless? Stab them? Kill them?

This "don't be a grass" nonsense is absolute bollocks. It's the phrase used by the spineless who don't want to stand up to the bullies.

It's also a massive assumption to say that it was a fellow Blade that dobbed him in. People don't seem to realise that when your clear facial image is emblazoned across the local paper, it is seen by all your relatives, your mates, your enemies, your work colleagues, ex school teachers, neighbours, basically everyone who's ever been a part of your life, no matter how insignificant.
CCTV is so good now and the images so clear, that you're almost certainly going to be recognised by someone and if they just happen to think you're a twat anyway............................

 

[ShockingBadBuy]

Unless you mean banned from Vale Park. It which case it's more of a reward than a punishment.

Fuck, yes.

Are these the red smoke bombs we are talking about? The ones that have literally never hurt another person?

I beg to differ. You don't have to look very far on here for at least one alarming example of a Blade badly hurt by a smoke canister (thrown by a Blade, into a crowd of Blades) quite recently--young son of a well-known member and regular poster to this forum, who I won't name because he's on the record as saying that he doesn't necessarily want to be in peoples' faces about it. I believe the summary version goes something like, "Child Carried Out of Oakwell on a Stretcher".

 

[Nick Jansky]

Please accept my sincere apology Nick . I've reread the thread and i feel compelled to alter my original comment . There are of course two fucking idiots on this thread , you and one other .

Racism and pyros in the same breath ? Don't be a pair of fucking idiots .

By the way, just out of interest, what sort of things do you think that we are no longer allowed to say? I can't think of much, but that's where this, and your subsequent abuse, originated from, as you will know having read the whole debate? Enlighten us with your thoughts on that?

 

[snootyfenooty]

Before this thread goes any further, can someone confirm whether the offending object was a flare or a smoke bomb. One is an incendiary device which can do substantial damage to people and property. The other errm, emits smoke. It's like comparing a nuclear bomb with a photo bomb. One is regularly confused with the other for some reason, mainly for sensationalism in my guess. A bit like bringing racism into the debate. I haven't seen any flares going off for about 15 years so someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[coolhandluke]

Think you could do with an alcholic drink mate because the demons are still coming out without it

Could do with one ? I thought I'd had a gallon and half and a couple of whiskey chasers

Quite how anyone of sound mind can attempt to conflate a pissed up young idiot with a flare at a football match with racism is staggering in its absurdity . This site does have its fair share of high handed feigned moral indignation but fuck me , racism and pyros takes things to a frankly shameful level .

 

[coolhandluke]

By the way, just out of interest, what sort of things do you think that we are no longer allowed to say? I can't think of much, but that's where this, and your subsequent abuse, originated from, as you will know having read the whole debate? Enlighten us with your thoughts on that?

See post # 104

 

[Good Pinch Of Snuff]

Flares tomorrow for me

 

[sheffielder]

Could do with one ? I thought I'd had a gallon and half and a couple of whiskey chasers

Quite how anyone of sound mind can attempt to conflate a pissed up young idiot with a flare at a football match with racism is staggering in its absurdity . This site does have its fair share of high handed feigned moral indignation but fuck me , racism and pyros takes things to a frankly shameful level .

You completely misunderstood his comment. He was basically saying if people like him can call out racism then why can't they call out a pyro boy

 

[coolhandluke]

You completely misunderstood his comment. He was basically saying if people like him can call out racism then why can't they call out a pyro boy

I didn't misread his thread in any way shape or form .

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Before this thread goes any further, can someone confirm whether the offending object was a flare or a smoke bomb. One is an incendiary device which can do substantial damage to people and property. The other errm, emits smoke. It's like comparing a nuclear bomb with a photo bomb. One is regularly confused with the other for some reason, mainly for sensationalism in my guess. A bit like bringing racism into the debate. I haven't seen any flares going off for about 15 years so someone please correct me if I am wrong.

You have obviously missed a post near the beginning - I will re-quote the first part of the text

"What is the law governing smoke bombs and flares at football matches?

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985.

It is on offence for a person to enter or attempt to enter a football ground while in possession of a flare, smoke bomb or firework. The sentence for these offences can be as much as three months in prison, and in many cases, fans who have no previous convictions are being given prison sentences for attempting to enter a football ground with a smoke bomb in their pocket as the courts take these offences very seriously."

Doesn't matter what it is - think you will find they are all covered and are illegal.

UTB

 

[Nick Jansky]

See post # 104

You haven't understood anything, have you?

 

[Nick Jansky]

Before this thread goes any further, can someone confirm whether the offending object was a flare or a smoke bomb. One is an incendiary device which can do substantial damage to people and property. The other errm, emits smoke. It's like comparing a nuclear bomb with a photo bomb. One is regularly confused with the other for some reason, mainly for sensationalism in my guess. A bit like bringing racism into the debate. I haven't seen any flares going off for about 15 years so someone please correct me if I am wrong.

It was a flare.

 

[snootyfenooty]

You have obviously missed a post near the beginning - I will re-quote the first part of the text

"What is the law governing smoke bombs and flares at football matches?

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985.

I did read it actually. Plus the rest of the same Act which refers primarily to alcohol. So you think all transgressors under this Act should be banned? There will be about 5,000 at the next home game if this is the case, not many at away grounds and you will not be a very popular person for raising this with the authorities. Or do you only want the bit about smoke bombs to be applicable. And you still didn't answer my query as to whether the offending object was a flare or a smoke bomb.

 

[Nick Jansky]

I did read it actually. Plus the rest of the same Act which refers primarily to alcohol. So you think all transgressors under this Act should be banned? There will be about 5,000 at the next home game if this is the case, not many at away grounds and you will not be a very popular person for raising this with the authorities. Or do you only want the bit about smoke bombs to be applicable. And you still didn't answer my query as to whether the offending object was a flare or a smoke bomb.

I did, it was a flare.

You still haven't answered the question about what it is we are no longer allowed to say?

 

[Bladesway]

And just as suspected, another thread jam packed with self-righteous bollocks and demonstrations of moral purity.

Comments like this make me laugh. No problem for the guys doing something illegal in a football ground but people wanting to stop it and saying he should be banned are apparently spouting "self-righteous bollocks". But chucking pyro around is fair game? You can't do it in the pub, in the shopping centre, at a concert, at any other public, sporting event but apparently it is ok to be doing this at a football match? And I'm the one talking bollocks? Ok.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

I did read it actually. Plus the rest of the same Act which refers primarily to alcohol. So you think all transgressors under this Act should be banned? There will be about 5,000 at the next home game if this is the case, not many at away grounds and you will not be a very popular person for raising this with the authorities. Or do you only want the bit about smoke bombs to be applicable. And you still didn't answer my query as to whether the offending object was a flare or a smoke bomb.

I don't know the wording of the act, so correct me if I am wrong. My take on this is that the rules on smoke bombs, etc. are crystal clear - possession of one is an offence - no argument. Drunkenness is much more difficult to define. I have no problem with drunkenness if it involves no more than the 'giddiness' someone referred to in a previous post, but if it becomes threatening, abusive, etc., then it should be dealt with. Removing the individual to sober up is probably enough. Someone who has a few pints and sings loudly does not bother me in the least - and I will keep standing up to let them go to the Gents without complaint.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Comments like this make me laugh. No problem for the guys doing something illegal in a football ground but people wanting to stop it and saying he should be banned are apparently spouting "self-righteous bollocks". But chucking pyro around is fair game? You can't do it in the pub, in the shopping centre, at a concert, at any other public, sporting event but apparently it is ok to be doing this at a football match? And I'm the one talking bollocks? Ok.

Three threads, two regarding the use of pyrotechnics and one about pitch invasions (oh the humanity). Each of them running into the hundreds of comments.

All that needs to be said about the subject is that it's a bit fucking silly and yes, potentially dangerous. Fortunately the law and ground regulations agree, so that should be the end of the matter.

The continued Mary Whitehouse-esque condemnation is indeed self-righteous, self indulgent bollocks however.

 

[snootyfenooty]

I don't know the wording of the act, so correct me if I am wrong. My take on this is that the rules on smoke bombs, etc. are crystal clear - possession of one is an offence - no argument. Drunkenness is much more difficult to define.

The provisions on alcohol and it's consumption are very clear. So are the provisions about drinking on coaches and minibuses. So the pious ones amongst us please stand up and state your innocence. Scroll through the following, it's all there including the bit about the smoke bombs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/57/section/1

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Three threads, two regarding the use of pyrotechnics and one about pitch invasions (oh the humanity). Each of them running into the hundreds of comments.

All that needs to be said about the subject is that it's a bit fucking silly and yes, potentially dangerous. Fortunately the law and ground regulations agree, so that should be the end of the matter.

The continued Mary Whitehouse-esque condemnation is indeed self-righteous, self indulgent bollocks however.

I almost agree with you - any mention of Mary Whitehouse and I'll join you on the barricades. But I think it is more complicated than you suggest. The law and ground regulations only mop up problems once they have occurred; crowds are best controlled by the people themselves. There will always be individuals who hide within the crowd, and if they think they are acting on behalf of all of us, they are likely to be encouraged. If they know that 99% of Blades don't want them doing dangerous or violent things on our behalf, they will feel less free to act.

 

[LJBlade]

Three threads, two regarding the use of pyrotechnics and one about pitch invasions (oh the humanity). Each of them running into the hundreds of comments.

All that needs to be said about the subject is that it's a bit fucking silly and yes, potentially dangerous. Fortunately the law and ground regulations agree, so that should be the end of the matter.

The continued Mary Whitehouse-esque condemnation is indeed self-righteous, self indulgent bollocks however.

So your problem is that a lot of people on this forum have an opinion on the matter? Or is it that their opinion differs from yours? The 3 threads in question, with hundreds of comments, have been contributed to by yourself. What's the problem if others want to contribute as well?

(You might notice I haven't contributed to any of them, other than this post, I'm just not a big fan of people saying what others should and shouldn't have an opinion about)

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

The provisions on alcohol and it's consumption are very clear. So are the provisions about drinking on coaches and minibuses. So the pious ones amongst us please stand up and state your innocence. Scroll through the following, it's all there including the bit about the smoke bombs.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/57/section/1

If that law is still in force, then I disagree with it. Alcohol is not dangerous in itself, only when it is misused. Flares etc do not have any valid safe use in a crowded enclosed space, and I support the enforcement of that law. Is there a definition of drunkenness anywhere in the legislation?